Some
years ago I was asked to go and collect Uri Avnery from the airport. Although I
had been reading his regular email reports from Israel, I wondered how I would
recognise him. I needn’t have worried, the moment I saw a magnificent old man,
complete with a head of impressive white hair and an equally impressive white
beard, striding towards me, I knew I had found my quarry. Uri looked every inch
the Old Testament prophet I hadn’t dared to expect.

It
was an appropriate reaction, Uri was a prophet, looking into the future that he
saw for Israel and warning of the wrath to come, if the country he loved, did
not change course.

After
leaving Germany aged fourteen, Uri joined an extremist nationalist group and
fought in the War of Independence in 1948. Then, like so many other prophets,
he had a Road to Damascus and saw that violence would not solve the problem of
the displaced Palestinians. For the rest of his long life, he fought for a
peaceful and fair settlement, one made by consulting with the Palestinians
themselves. Until around 1970, this seemed possible and Uri put the case both
through the journals he edited and wrote for and by becoming a member of the
Knesset.

It
was always difficult to be a non-conformist voice in Israel but until the
assassination of Rabin, not hopeless. As Israel drifted to the right, Uri never
wavered from his purpose, no matter how unpopular he became. Meeting up with
Arafat was seen as almost treasonous but Uri recognised that it was both wise
and necessary to talk to “the enemy”. All this made him few friends at home,
though many admirers abroad. If “no man is a prophet in his own country”, that
was true of Uri. However he leaves behind a wealth of books, articles and
emails, that will continue to inspire the peace efforts in the Middle East and
he represented hope and reconciliation through the dark decades, that alas, are
still with us. Like him we must hope and work towards better times, however
unlikely any breakthrough seems.

A capacity for rage

Uri
thought in both historical and internationalist terms, one was as likely to
meet Julius Caesar, Churchill or Kant, in his writings as Trump or Netanyahu. The
ability to see the world in such broad terms meant that Uri could envisage
solutions that others looking at a narrower canvas could not. For instance the
stance on the future of Jerusalem (always a major problem in any
negotiations), “Keep the city untied on a municipal level but divide politically.
The West as capital of the State of Israel, the East as capital of the State of
Palestine”. Of course this eminently
sensible solution has not been adopted and the State of Palestine has not
happened. However, Uri understood the Israel/Palestine conflict as few others
did, and felt a strong compassion for the Palestinians. Quoting Isaac Deutscher,
“A man lives in a house that catches fire. To save his life he jumps out of the
window. He lands on a passer-by in the street below and injures him grievously.
Between the two a bitter enmity arises. Who is responsible?”

Although
Uri clung to the Two State Solution to the end, seeing the alternative as a
Jewish-dominated entity trapped in endless racial and religious conflict ( this
put him at odds with many progressive Israelis) – he never swerved from
expressing unpopular views. Right at the end of his life he was outraged at the
killing of unarmed civilians on the border with Gaza, his capacity for rage
never dimmed:

“For
me this is not a judicial question. It is a crime, not only against the unarmed
protesters. It is also a crime against the State of Israel and against the
Israeli army."

Avnery
did not only criticise the situation, for forty years he battled to find a
solution, showing a capacity for compromise that was rare in Israel. Unlike
many, he had an affection and understanding for the Arab people and suggested a
scenario, which though never acted upon, was wise and far sighted:

“How
do we solve the problem by allowing a number of refugees to return to Israel,
allowing a number of refugees to return to the Palestinian state, and allowing
a number of refugees to settle, with general compensation, where they want to
settle? It is not an abstract problem. It involves four million human beings, and
more than fifty years of various sorts of misery. But it is not an insolvable
problem. It involves some good will, and a readiness to give up historic myths
on both sides.”

Avnery’s views were based on an
unusual acceptance of Israel’s responsibility for the conflict:

“Israel must assume responsibility
for what happened in 1948, and as far as we are to blame and we are to blame
for the greater part, if not for all, we must recognise the right of return.”

Like all true prophets he went
tragically unheard at home.

Avnery never spared his opponents at
home and abroad. On those he despised he poured undiluted scorn and opprobrium,
most recently on Trump and the right wing leaders of Poland and Hungary and
Netanyahu’s grovelling to them, in spite of their overt anti-semitism. Never
afraid to tell truth to power, Israel has lost one of its most clear-sighted
and indomitable warriors for peace.

About the author

Ann Jungman, born in London of refugee parents, worked on an Israeli kibbutz before becoming a writer for children, later founding the company Barn Owl Books. Her many books include Vlad the Drac, the story of a vegetarian vampire. She is a member of Just Peace, Peace Now, and Independent Jewish Voices.

This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence.
If you have any queries about republishing please contact us.
Please check individual images for licensing details.

Recent comments

openDemocracy is an independent, non-profit global media outlet, covering world affairs, ideas and culture, which seeks to challenge power and encourage democratic debate across the world. We publish high-quality investigative reporting and analysis; we train and mentor journalists and wider civil society; we publish in Russian, Arabic, Spanish and Portuguese and English.